Sarah A Schoenrock1,2,3, Padam Kumar1, Alexander Gómez-A4, Price E Dickson3,5, Sam-Moon Kim3,6, Lauren Bailey3,7, Sofia Neira2,4, Kyle D Riker4, Joseph Farrington1, Christiann H Gaines1,2, Saad Khan1, Troy D Wilcox3,5, Tyler A Roy3,5, Michael R Leonardo3,5, Ashley A Olson3,5, Leona H Gagnon3,5, Vivek M Philip3,5, William Valdar1,8, Fernando Pardo-Manuel de Villena1,8, James D Jentsch3,7, Ryan W Logan3,6, Colleen A McClung3,6, Donita L Robinson4,9, Elissa J Chesler3,5, Lisa M Tarantino10,11,12. 1. Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, 120 Mason Farm Road, CB7361, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. 2. Neuroscience Curriculum, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Center for Systems Neurogenetics of Addiction, The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA. 4. Bowles Center for Alcohol Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA. 6. Translational Neuroscience Program, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 7. Department of Psychology, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA. 8. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 9. Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 10. Department of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, 120 Mason Farm Road, CB7361, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. lisat@med.unc.edu. 11. Center for Systems Neurogenetics of Addiction, The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA. lisat@med.unc.edu. 12. Division of Pharmacotherapy and Experimental Therapeutics, Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. lisat@med.unc.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Few effective treatments exist for cocaine use disorders due to gaps in knowledge about its complex etiology. Genetically defined animal models provide a useful tool for advancing our understanding of the biological and genetic underpinnings of addiction-related behavior and evaluating potential treatments. However, many attempts at developing mouse models of behavioral disorders were based on overly simplified single gene perturbations, often leading to inconsistent and misleading results in pre-clinical pharmacology studies. A genetically complex mouse model may better reflect disease-related behaviors. OBJECTIVES: Screening defined, yet genetically complex, intercrosses of the Collaborative Cross (CC) mice revealed two lines, RIX04/17 and RIX41/51, with extreme high and low behavioral responses to cocaine. We characterized these lines as well as their CC parents, CC004/TauUnc and CC041/TauUnc, to evaluate their utility as novel model systems for studying the biological and genetic mechanisms underlying behavioral responses to cocaine. METHODS: Behavioral responses to acute (initial locomotor sensitivity) and repeated (behavioral sensitization, conditioned place preference, intravenous self-administration) exposures to cocaine were assessed. We also examined the monoaminergic system (striatal tissue content and in vivo fast scan cyclic voltammetry), HPA axis reactivity, and circadian rhythms as potential mechanisms for the divergent phenotypic behaviors observed in the two strains, as these systems have a previously known role in mediating addiction-related behaviors. RESULTS: RIX04/17 and 41/51 show strikingly divergent initial locomotor sensitivity to cocaine with RIX04/17 exhibiting very high and RIX41/51 almost no response. The lines also differ in the emergence of behavioral sensitization with RIX41/51 requiring more exposures to exhibit a sensitized response. Both lines show conditioned place preference for cocaine. We determined that the cocaine sensitivity phenotype in each RIX line was largely driven by the genetic influence of one CC parental strain, CC004/TauUnc and CC041/TauUnc. CC004 demonstrates active operant cocaine self-administration and CC041 is unable to acquire under the same testing conditions, a deficit which is specific to cocaine as both strains show operant response for a natural food reward. Examination of potential mechanisms driving differential responses to cocaine show strain differences in molecular and behavioral circadian rhythms. Additionally, while there is no difference in striatal dopamine tissue content or dynamics, there are selective differences in striatal norepinephrine and serotonergic tissue content. CONCLUSIONS: These CC strains offer a complex polygenic model system to study underlying mechanisms of cocaine response. We propose that CC041/TauUnc and CC004/TauUnc will be useful for studying genetic and biological mechanisms underlying resistance or vulnerability to the stimulatory and reinforcing effects of cocaine.
RATIONALE: Few effective treatments exist for cocaine use disorders due to gaps in knowledge about its complex etiology. Genetically defined animal models provide a useful tool for advancing our understanding of the biological and genetic underpinnings of addiction-related behavior and evaluating potential treatments. However, many attempts at developing mouse models of behavioral disorders were based on overly simplified single gene perturbations, often leading to inconsistent and misleading results in pre-clinical pharmacology studies. A genetically complex mouse model may better reflect disease-related behaviors. OBJECTIVES: Screening defined, yet genetically complex, intercrosses of the Collaborative Cross (CC) mice revealed two lines, RIX04/17 and RIX41/51, with extreme high and low behavioral responses to cocaine. We characterized these lines as well as their CC parents, CC004/TauUnc and CC041/TauUnc, to evaluate their utility as novel model systems for studying the biological and genetic mechanisms underlying behavioral responses to cocaine. METHODS: Behavioral responses to acute (initial locomotor sensitivity) and repeated (behavioral sensitization, conditioned place preference, intravenous self-administration) exposures to cocaine were assessed. We also examined the monoaminergic system (striatal tissue content and in vivo fast scan cyclic voltammetry), HPA axis reactivity, and circadian rhythms as potential mechanisms for the divergent phenotypic behaviors observed in the two strains, as these systems have a previously known role in mediating addiction-related behaviors. RESULTS: RIX04/17 and 41/51 show strikingly divergent initial locomotor sensitivity to cocaine with RIX04/17 exhibiting very high and RIX41/51 almost no response. The lines also differ in the emergence of behavioral sensitization with RIX41/51 requiring more exposures to exhibit a sensitized response. Both lines show conditioned place preference for cocaine. We determined that the cocaine sensitivity phenotype in each RIX line was largely driven by the genetic influence of one CC parental strain, CC004/TauUnc and CC041/TauUnc. CC004 demonstrates active operant cocaine self-administration and CC041 is unable to acquire under the same testing conditions, a deficit which is specific to cocaine as both strains show operant response for a natural food reward. Examination of potential mechanisms driving differential responses to cocaine show strain differences in molecular and behavioral circadian rhythms. Additionally, while there is no difference in striatal dopamine tissue content or dynamics, there are selective differences in striatal norepinephrine and serotonergic tissue content. CONCLUSIONS: These CC strains offer a complex polygenic model system to study underlying mechanisms of cocaine response. We propose that CC041/TauUnc and CC004/TauUnc will be useful for studying genetic and biological mechanisms underlying resistance or vulnerability to the stimulatory and reinforcing effects of cocaine.
Entities:
Keywords:
Behavioral sensitization; Circadian behavior; Circadian rhythm; Conditioned place preference; Fast scan cyclic voltammetry; HPA axis; Intravenous self-administration; Monoamine; Wheel-running
Authors: Rong Chen; Michael R Tilley; Hua Wei; Fuwen Zhou; Fu-Ming Zhou; San Ching; Ning Quan; Robert L Stephens; Erik R Hill; Timothy Nottoli; Dawn D Han; Howard H Gu Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Gary A Churchill; David C Airey; Hooman Allayee; Joe M Angel; Alan D Attie; Jackson Beatty; William D Beavis; John K Belknap; Beth Bennett; Wade Berrettini; Andre Bleich; Molly Bogue; Karl W Broman; Kari J Buck; Ed Buckler; Margit Burmeister; Elissa J Chesler; James M Cheverud; Steven Clapcote; Melloni N Cook; Roger D Cox; John C Crabbe; Wim E Crusio; Ariel Darvasi; Christian F Deschepper; R W Doerge; Charles R Farber; Jiri Forejt; Daniel Gaile; Steven J Garlow; Hartmut Geiger; Howard Gershenfeld; Terry Gordon; Jing Gu; Weikuan Gu; Gerald de Haan; Nancy L Hayes; Craig Heller; Heinz Himmelbauer; Robert Hitzemann; Kent Hunter; Hui-Chen Hsu; Fuad A Iraqi; Boris Ivandic; Howard J Jacob; Ritsert C Jansen; Karl J Jepsen; Dabney K Johnson; Thomas E Johnson; Gerd Kempermann; Christina Kendziorski; Malak Kotb; R Frank Kooy; Bastien Llamas; Frank Lammert; Jean-Michel Lassalle; Pedro R Lowenstein; Lu Lu; Aldons Lusis; Kenneth F Manly; Ralph Marcucio; Doug Matthews; Juan F Medrano; Darla R Miller; Guy Mittleman; Beverly A Mock; Jeffrey S Mogil; Xavier Montagutelli; Grant Morahan; David G Morris; Richard Mott; Joseph H Nadeau; Hiroki Nagase; Richard S Nowakowski; Bruce F O'Hara; Alexander V Osadchuk; Grier P Page; Beverly Paigen; Kenneth Paigen; Abraham A Palmer; Huei-Ju Pan; Leena Peltonen-Palotie; Jeremy Peirce; Daniel Pomp; Michal Pravenec; Daniel R Prows; Zhonghua Qi; Roger H Reeves; John Roder; Glenn D Rosen; Eric E Schadt; Leonard C Schalkwyk; Ze'ev Seltzer; Kazuhiro Shimomura; Siming Shou; Mikko J Sillanpää; Linda D Siracusa; Hans-Willem Snoeck; Jimmy L Spearow; Karen Svenson; Lisa M Tarantino; David Threadgill; Linda A Toth; William Valdar; Fernando Pardo-Manuel de Villena; Craig Warden; Steve Whatley; Robert W Williams; Tim Wiltshire; Nengjun Yi; Dabao Zhang; Min Zhang; Fei Zou Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Sarah M Clinton; Cortney A Turner; Shelly B Flagel; Danielle N Simpson; Stanley J Watson; Huda Akil Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.533
Authors: Isabelle Boileau; Alain Dagher; Marco Leyton; Roger N Gunn; Glen B Baker; Mirko Diksic; Chawki Benkelfat Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2006-12
Authors: Sylvia M L Cox; Chawki Benkelfat; Alain Dagher; J Scott Delaney; France Durand; Samuel A McKenzie; Theodore Kolivakis; Kevin F Casey; Marco Leyton Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Chenhan Zhong; Li He; Sun-Young Lee; Hang Chang; Yuqing Zhang; David W Threadgill; Ying Yuan; Fuling Zhou; Susan E Celniker; Yankai Xia; Antoine M Snijders; Jian-Hua Mao Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2021-01-17 Impact factor: 5.153
Authors: Samuel J Harp; Mariangela Martini; Will Rosenow; Larry D Mesner; Hugh Johnson; Charles R Farber; Emilie F Rissman Journal: Physiol Behav Date: 2021-10-26
Authors: Patrick B Schwartz; Morgan T Walcheck; Mark Berres; Manabu Nukaya; Gang Wu; Noah D Carrillo; Kristina A Matkowskyj; Sean M Ronnekleiv-Kelly Journal: Physiol Genomics Date: 2021-05-31 Impact factor: 4.297
Authors: Christopher P King; Jordan A Tripi; Alesa R Hughson; Aidan P Horvath; Alexander C Lamparelli; Katie L Holl; Apurva S Chitre; Oksana Polesskaya; Keita Ishiwari; Leah C Solberg Woods; Abraham A Palmer; Terry E Robinson; Shelly B Flagel; Paul J Meyer Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sam-Moon Kim; Chelsea A Vadnie; Vivek M Philip; Leona H Gagnon; Kodavali V Chowdari; Elissa J Chesler; Colleen A McClung; Ryan W Logan Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 4.379